msupf:Wow, the court wouldn't even admit they made a mistake when dropping the case.

Asshattery to a high degree.

Well, that hurts their numbers if they just let people go. Gotta get that conviction rate up so your superiors can see you are doing a good job and you can get that promotion. Thats how it works here with the DA's office (winning% means everything) and NYPD (faking compstat numbers so LTs and such can get bumped up)

I heard they had a machine called a breathalyzer that police routinely use to analyze the percentage of alcohol in a person's bloodstream based on how much alcohol is in their breath, and they use it all the time to measure how much alcohol a suspected drunk driver is intoxicated with. I realize that this girl was not driving. But my question is could the police have nonetheless used the breathalyzer on a nondriving person under suspicion of alcohol intoxication? I'm sure test would have worked equally well for a non-motorist.

Kevin72:I heard they had a machine called a breathalyzer that police routinely use to analyze the percentage of alcohol in a person's bloodstream based on how much alcohol is in their breath, and they use it all the time to measure how much alcohol a suspected drunk driver is intoxicated with. I realize that this girl was not driving. But my question is could the police have nonetheless used the breathalyzer on a nondriving person under suspicion of alcohol intoxication? I'm sure test would have worked equally well for a non-motorist.

Or she may have just been shouting and acting crazy and they subdued her. Obviously the drinking charge won't stick, but the disorderly conduct probably will.

untaken_name:Criminalizing autism? I knew the private prison industry was looking for fresh meat, but that seems a bit excessive.

/DNRTFA

Right... because cops and prosecutors were never ignorant, racist, corrupt or overzealous before the private prison industry came along.

I don't think prisons should be privatized but the authoritarian BS didn't start with them; "criminal justice" has always tended that way. Your attempts to be edgy by attempting to "pull back the curtain on the man pulling the levers" simply exposes you as an ignorant hack.

Amazing, right? All the brat really needs is to be told to cut it out once in a while.

/yeah I fed it

Isn't the person pictured one Michael "Savage" Weiner PhD banned from entering the country in question for no reason but some bureaucrat somewhere doesn't like his politics, and is there an irony somewhere?

Whether or not she had autism is totally irrelevant to this story. She wasn't drunk. They held her for ten hours and then charged her anyway after finding out she wasn't drunk. This would be an appalling and disgusting story if she was just an ordinary person, or if she had diabetes or if she had a brain tumor.

It's that the cops (and the courts) can't admit they made a mistake, is all.

Not a fan of catch all type legislation that allows police to arrest people anytime they get sand in their panties. Drunk and disorderly, disturbing the peace, rape...all just made up shiat to oppress people.

The My Little Pony Killer:super_grass: Hey, the last time I checked, autists commit mass shootings and are considered "mentally ill", whatever that means.

Last time I checked, Asperger's isn't Autism.

/and calling them "autists" makes you sound kinda douchey

DSM V is reorganizing the diagnoses so all autism spectrum disorders are, well, autism spectrum disorder. Including Asberger's, which will no longer be a separately named diagnosis -- it will be under ASD.

Smeggy Smurf:fusillade762: police assumed she had been drinking and arrested her.If only there was some kind of test---At the police station, a doctor confirmed she hadn't been drinking, but still the police tried to pursue her through the courtsOh for F*CK'S sake.. Sue the shiat out of them.

This problem could quickly be solved if the prosecutor and the arresting officers were taken out back and hung. Their replacements will be a bit more careful.

Kevin72:I heard they had a machine called a breathalyzer that police routinely use to analyze the percentage of alcohol in a person's bloodstream based on how much alcohol is in their breath, and they use it all the time to measure how much alcohol a suspected drunk driver is intoxicated with. I realize that this girl was not driving. But my question is could the police have nonetheless used the breathalyzer on a nondriving person under suspicion of alcohol intoxication? I'm sure test would have worked equally well for a non-motorist.

It isn't illegal to be intoxicated. Suspecting someone of being intoxicated is not grounds to arrest them unless there is an actual crime being committed that might be linked to the alcohol. For example, disturbing the peace. Disturbing the peace while drunk is usually filed under 'drunk and disorderly conduct' which is a misdemeanor. Slightly worse in terms of penalties than disturbing the peace. In this situation, the police suspected of her of 'drunk and disorderly conduct' and so were legally allowed to see if she had been drinking.

HOWEVER, the fact that they continued to pursue for 'drunk and disorderly conduct' whenever it was found she was not drinking should, in a perfect world, lead to some questions being asked by people that don't have a dog in this race. Not sure who that is or how it works since it's Britain though.